'Opponent may have reloaded (x) times'

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Doh! Well you gotta give me credit for being honest enough to ask!

Indeed! Cheers...

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Question: does it constitute cheating if you attempt to disengage a unit, it is routed, so you hit the "go back" button. I feel highly conflicted about this issue, because I'm not aware of any way to ascertain the level of engagement a unit is experiencing, and thus, no way to know if a unit has the ability to retreat successfully or not, without trying to retreat. This does not seem realistic to me. It seems to me that, at the operational level (though perhaps not at the squad or platoon level) a unit would have some sense of whether or not it was pinned down by nearby enemy units or not.

Yes, it is cheating (if you're playing another human). If you're playing on your own, then anything goes. You could consider it an "educational experience" then...[;)]

The "sense" that you have as to whether a unit will be pinned down, relies on your experience with the game, and the knowledge you have of the battlefield particulars. For example, relative sizes of your units, are you retreating through consecutive ezoc's, relative recon strengths of the units involved, support assets within range that can bombard the retreating unit, etc. You need to develop that sense by playing and doing, and sometimes failing.

..wot 'e said

..picking up the same wrong unit and moving it, repeatedly in some cases, (i'd got mouse happy) isn't

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Raindem

There's a way to cheat-proof this part of the game but it would slow PBEM down to a crawl.

Quite. Cheat-proofing the game will remove so much functionality that it's not worth it.

..wot 'e said too..

[RERomine]

Why is cheat-proofing so difficult?
 
The obvious problem, which occurs with most PBEM games is if one person doesn't like the outcome of their turn they either reload the file or overlay the file(s) from the email attachment and try again.  This goes on until the player is happy with the outcome of their turn.
 
Seems to me the fix can be accomplished by behind the scenes functionality in all programs that have PBEM capability.  By utilizing two sequence numbers in the saved email games and one on each game computer, that would make cheating at least more difficult.  The idea behind this is that if the sequence number for computer A on the email file doesn't match the sequence number on computer A, the file doesn't load.  The same applies to computer B.  As a turn proceeds, the sequence number on the game computers periodically increments.  Now the sequence numbers are out of sync.  The only way to sync them back up is to save the file, which saves the sequence number on the game computer to the email save file.  It would not be possible to reload the file without a prior save or to replace the file from the email attachment.
 
This idea isn't without some problems, but I haven't given it a lot of in-depth thought.  One problem is the s**t happens factor: computers lock up, power goes out, etc. The periodically incrementing sequence number on the computer is now out of sync with the email save.  It would be possible to have the sequence number on the crashed computer reset by having your opponent resending the email save with a flag set in it to allow the reset to occur.  By doing it this way, at least the opponent might at least have a clue they are being cheated.  The game only continues with the opponent's permission.  Another problem is the saved game isn't portable.  I for one have OAW and SPWaW on two different computers.  Obviously, in this scenario, the likelihood of both computers having the same sequence number for PBEM slot 1 is very slim.  And yet another problem is the first turn of player one.  Since the game hasn't been saved yet, the sequence number on the email save file hasn't been set.  Player one could play the first turn over and over again until they like the outcome.  I don't have any answers for this one yet.
 
This is an alternate way of looking at a solution.  While it won't stop someone really determined to cheat, it will make it more difficult.  This solution would avoid the need to have mid-turn email file exchanges.  The incrementing sequence number on the game computer shouldn't burn much CPU.  In fact, I doubt the difference would even be noticed.
 
On a different note, there are many games out there with 'undo' buttons.  The solution is simply to disable the undo button when something significant happens, i.e. borders change, new units spotted, moved unit damaged, etc.  I've seen this done in many of the games that have 'undo' buttons, so it's not a new idea.
 
Well, that's my two cents.
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
  [:)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

And yet another problem is the first turn of player one.  Since the game hasn't been saved yet, the sequence number on the email save file hasn't been set.  Player one could play the first turn over and over again until they like the outcome.  I don't have any answers for this one yet.

Require the force two player to start any PBM game. The only thing they do is enter their password and this produces the first file, together with your sequence number

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
I haven't PBMed TOAW III so I can't tell you exactly, but the impression I get is that it's hard not to generate this message.

LOL. The schadenfreude I get from this could power a small city for a few days.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: RERomine

And yet another problem is the first turn of player one.  Since the game hasn't been saved yet, the sequence number on the email save file hasn't been set.  Player one could play the first turn over and over again until they like the outcome.  I don't have any answers for this one yet.

Require the force two player to start any PBM game. The only thing they do is enter their password and this produces the first file, together with your sequence number

I thought about that, but the problem is player 1 hasn't saved anything yet so their sequence number isn't on the email save file. It would be possible to have an exchange of save files before the game play actually begins. This way, when player 1 moves their first unit, sequence numbers from both players is stored on the save file. It does cause an additional bit of overhead at the beginning of the game, but results in a more than likely clean game. I've been on the short end of email cheats before and it's not fun. You can learn more from losing a game to a good player than you can by cheating.

[Okimaw]

You know....with all this talk of the neccessity of the current "anti cheat" pain in the butt feature, how come I've never heard of who these cheaters were/are? It's a no no to bring up names on the forums and there's no blacklist anywhere. BTW how could anyone tell if someone was cheating in the earlier versionsAnd now we have the ladder custodians over at the blitz ladder saying the reload messages are all valid and will be treated as cheating. I can say that I have never cheated and don't suspect any of my opponents of ever cheating and I get these stupid reload messages almost daily (I tend to play a lot). So now I won't accept any blitz ladder challenges as I certainly don't need the hassle of being accused of cheating because of a known bug in the game.  

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Okimaw

You know....with all this talk of the neccessity of the current "anti cheat" pain in the butt feature, how come I've never heard of who these cheaters were/are? It's a no no to bring up names on the forums and there's no blacklist anywhere. BTW how could anyone tell if someone was cheating in the earlier versionsAnd now we have the ladder custodians over at the blitz ladder saying the reload messages are all valid and will be treated as cheating. I can say that I have never cheated and don't suspect any of my opponents of ever cheating and I get these stupid reload messages almost daily (I tend to play a lot). So now I won't accept any blitz ladder challenges as I certainly don't need the hassle of being accused of cheating because of a known bug in the game.  

Honestly, there is no way to tell if someone is cheating or just good. Just have to have trust in the people you play against. But if events start defying probability, you can't help but wonder. Obviously Matrix has at least considered the possibility or the "Opponent may have reloaded (x) times" message wouldn't exist. Better to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the risk of cheating so you won't have to refuse games to avoid possibly being accused.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Okimaw

You know....with all this talk of the neccessity of the current "anti cheat" pain in the butt feature, how come I've never heard of who these cheaters were/are?

I can only definitively identify one cheater, but then I don't play against people I don't already know. Don't feel like naming and shaming right now.

[Okimaw]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Okimaw

You know....with all this talk of the neccessity of the current "anti cheat" pain in the butt feature, how come I've never heard of who these cheaters were/are?

I can only definitively identify one cheater, but then I don't play against people I don't already know. Don't feel like naming and shaming right now.

Actually it was more of a rhetorical question anyhow. I too try to play people I'm familiar with although filling up a free game time slot neccessitates taking on a strange opponent, but then again, a stranger is a friend waiting to happn right? [:D]

[a white rabbit]

..wot 'e said